It's amazing how big the world can still be. Becoming Orthodox has opened me to a near-inexhaustible library of astounding and propounding -- and indeed holy -- literature, both ancient and contemporary (seeing as how the contemporary is also ancient, given its infinite source), as well as in book and blog form. A great example would be Fr. John Tobias' review of David Bentley Hart's new book, Atheist Delusions, a book I have been so eager to read that I'm contemplating pushing back my next summer reading book back a slot. Few, if any, match Hart's eloquence in writing and wit, but Fr. Tobias doesn't leave his readers wanting.

Consider the following passage, in which Fr. Tobias clarifies Hart's thesis, for anyone who may have thought Atheist Delusions could or should be boiled down to "a sure bet in a back alley cockfight with the "new atheists." 

His proposition was that the Christian Church brought about a profound revolution, whose effects permeated the world of human society. It established what is facilely known as "Christendom" (West and East): everyone knows that, but Hart proves that what we like to think of as "the West" is fundamentally this very Christendom – despite the current and odious attempt to establish a secular singular Europe. All the liberal things we are justly proud of are in fact Christian inventions; to name just a few: things like hospitals, effective medicine, justice for the powerless, "healthcare and welfare," the prohibition of gladiatorial combat, the eradication of slavery, the full involvement of women in religion (suggesting that the male priesthood contradicts the full participation of women in Orthodoxy is as lamentable as supposing that female motherhood diminishes the participation of males in parenthood, or that female wifehood prohibits the full range of male sexuality).

That last point sounds abrupt in a bozart age when "full participation" has been jingo-ized into hieretical affirmative action. But Christianity was the first to involve all adherents – rich or poor, slave or free, men or women, Greek, Roman and Jew – cramming them all into one single Liturgy and Sacrament, the same font and cup, the same nave. The question of "why can't I be the celebrant?" was never related to St. Paul's "in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave nor free."

The Christian Revolution went deeper than political enfranchisement, thank God. And thus, all the conservative things, too, that we cherish are at least fulfilled in Christianity, if not inaugurated at the Cross and Pentecost. Truth and the infinite, the beautiful and the good were wrested out of the heave-ho tides of cultural philosophies and political cults. They were solidified, even "realized" (if one wants to sound hackneyed) in the Holy Tradition catapulted by the Third Person and the Apostles. 

He has a good deal more to say on that subject and others, touching on even the recent (and suddenly receded) wave of hero worship around our new president. I found this part particularly enjoyable and insightful:

I am glad this book came along when it did, because I was down in the dumps about history and all that – contemporary history, that is, like right now. I wasn't so sad about Obama winning, nor was I very glad. I saw the hoopla all last year, and what brought me by the lee was not that the country is turning socialist (which it's not), or that the masses adulating Obama were like the despotic pep rallies of the Thirties (which they are not). Obama's rallies were more like revival meetings (very familiar to me) and nothing at all like an Amway or Falangista gathering, or any other such synaxis of troglodytes.

But Obama's revival meetings, like all revival meetings, are bound to grow cold and clammy at the press of real tomorrow. Time itself proves too great a challenge for all Protestant endeavors, especially including the fervent myths choreographed by the Democratic Party.

That is not the cause of my diffuse woe. There is nothing new about Democratic disillusionment (for therapy, they should read about Claudius' disillusionment with the Senate). I grieve, rather, for the ongoing illusionment of the Republicans and all who are "right." The divide between authentic conversativism – the sort envisioned by Russell Kirk, T. S. Eliot and the Inklings, Richard Weaver and the Agrarians – and the current dreck of right-wing, neo-cheney-con, evangelo-babbulo palinitism is getting more like the gulf between Lazarus and rich man … that is, after the tables were turned. I grieve that Chesterton and Belloc would be certainly damned as socialists and communists by His Cigarness, the Grand Poobah, and His Minister of Michael Scott Impersonation, Dreck of Fox. Already, "distributism" is thrown here and there as a curseword. I would worry for GK and Hillaire more were it not for the sorry fact that they are not read, if they are known at all.

The whole piece, while admittedly I don't quite grasp it all, is quite intriguing, and makes me only more eager to read Hart's book. Can The Brothers Karamozov really stand to be pushed back?

    This week something remarkable happened: the inauguration of Barack Obama to the White House. And yes, it was truly remarkable, no matter which of the two parties you belong. I listened to his speech and the following jamboree on the radio, since I was at work and was only able to catch a glimpse of the televisions up front. It was good, great, grood even, and it felt good to finally see this thing realized. What, pray tell, do I mean here by "thing"? Well, in fact, a number of things, not the least of which is the induction of a black man to our highest office; that right there has been a long time coming. But perhaps more mundanely I meant simply the inauguration itself. I couldn't bear another morning of waking up to the pundits going on about how he's almost our new president. It's hard to believe two whole months passed since that whirlwind of an election. In fact, I've been thinking lately of that momentous occasion, and just how fast it all really happened.
    On the night of November 4, 2008, I left church and headed over to my friends' house nearby to say hello. When I got there, they were, of course, avidly watching the start of the election coverage on all the major networks. I told them right off the bat I would not be staying to watch. I was merely coming over to say hello, visit a bit, and would be headed home to wait until the next morning to find out the results of the election.
    “Why wouldn't you want to watch?” they wondered. Indeed, to my friends, as to most Americans that night, my aspirations to avoid the election coverage at all costs must have sounded asinine. This was the most important night of the year – the night we had all been waiting for, which seemed to capture practically every bit of journalistic interest for as long as any of us could remember.
    Of course, a part of me did want to watch – and watch I did, for a while. I, like any informed citizen, had tried my best to keep up with the election coverage so as to guarantee my vote would be knowledgeable, sincere and full of conviction. So naturally I was interested in the outcome. But in my gut, however, I knew that it was curiosity that killed the cat, and my gut was not interested in the imminent ulcer several grueling hours of nail-biting news coverage would surely supply.
    I like to think, however, that it was more than just my tummy's well-being that had me so opposed to the carnival of coverage. I hoped there was also in my delinquency an ingredient civil noncompliance, meaning I could abide by the constraint of ideas and principles over and against my personal gratification and the thrill of television at its most unscripted. There was a feeling I just couldn't shake, which mirrored perhaps the feeling you get when, having slept through a long flight, you wake up in a different country and climate, on a different day, and among foreign-tongued civilians. In other words, this election business was all happening so fast. In my own state of Kentucky, polls had opened that morning at 6 AM and closed about 12 hours later. Next, Americans collectively took a breath and held it.  For five hours the nation sat rapt before the flat screen HD TV, spiking network ratings perhaps not seen since the last hotly contested election four years earlier. Then came the most anticipated exhale of the century. That same night we had a new president, not 6 hours after the polls had closed.
    OK, I admit it. I watched the whole damn thing. But let's face it: if I hadn't how could I bloviate on the matter as I am? Perhaps this time around, my nervousness was overcome by disbelief. I simply could not understand how the networks felt confident enough to call a state for McCain or Obama when only 5% of the state's vote had been counted. More mystifying still, how could they call Washington, Oregon, and California for Obama immediately after their polls closed? It's not that I was dissatisfied with the outcome (I had become an avid Obama recruit), but just how was it that they were able to “project” without fail which way every state and commonwealth in the Union would fall, red or blue, Republican or Democrat, McCain or Obama?
    Not only could I not get a grip on the networks' crystal ball clairvoyance, I refused to believe this divination was ideal. Sure, it was nice to know the outcome, to “just get it over with”, to let all those months of anticipation dissipate in buoyant joy or bitter sorrow. But I wondered what were we forsaking in our capitulation to prime time politics? How is it that we were willing to parse down the most important decision of the year, of the next four years, in fact, to a matter of moments? Poor Obama and McCain: so obliged were they to ready themselves for crowning victory or devastating defeat only hours after they left the campaign trail. Gone were the days when each vote was taken singularly and seriously, when the gravity of a nation's resolve outweighed the “urgency of now.” In those days of yore, eager voters had to wait for weeks before every vote was tallied, and a consensus reached. On November 4th, 2008, we could hardly wait till the polls closed before pronouncing our victor.
    I wondered: Was this democracy? Was this our sacred ritual of freedom? Perhaps instead this was a sort of ruse, a comic diffusion done up and digestible for the attention-deficient American public. Rather than any dignified sign of civil liberty, this looked to me much more like Hollywood donning wig and gavel to feed us the plot line which we'd come to crave. Suddenly it made sense that the the dust would settle so quickly. Could we, as 21st century American citizens, really bear the suspense of an actual tally of votes? I hardly thought so. We're the nation of fast food, TV dinners and instant messaging. We've come to expect a happy ending after a couple of hours. In other words, we demand instant gratification, and our presidential elections are no exception.
    There was something else entirely lost in our mad dash to victory that Tuesday night. So much of the drama of it revolved around the either-or sensibility. The good vs. bad, old vs. young, and experience vs. change narratives the media had written for us (and the candidates stuck by) played perfectly into our preconceived paradigm of contest. The United States democratic process has been locked in a two-party system for decades. Ross Perot made a decent run in 1996 on account of his deep pockets. And on occasion, rogues like Ralph Nader are lambasted for “stealing votes” from the two major candidates. In spite of these anomalies, the essence of our political process has long lain at the feet of two very similar giants. Of course, the general public doesn't see them as all that similar. They can be delineated with labels like “big government” and “fiscal conservative” easily enough. It's not that these names accurately describe the parties they are assigned to. It's just a way for us to keep things simple, to eliminate any shade but black and white. We've got to keep things simple or we might get confused. We like our elections like we like our sports: Two teams, one winner. Ties are a necessary evil. But bringing a third team onto the field – or worse yet, a fourth or fifth – just doesn't fit the bill.
    Hence, the vote for third party is often derided as a “wasted vote,” and often the voter's conscience is overrun by pragmatism simply to avoid the spoiler effect. What's the point of voting for someone who's never going to win? Or so goes the logic. This rationale does not reign supreme, however. In every election you still hear of the bleeding hearts out there who hold out hope for a democratic process bigger than just two parties. The evidence is clear. Ralph Nader and company netted nearly 700,000 votes. Bob Barr of the Libertarians caught nearly half a million, and Charles Baldwin, Ron Paul's pick, about 200,000. These are by no means massive or impressive results. But they demonstrate, at least, that the outcasts had captured some interest – well over a million voters' collectively. Racing across the finish line on election night, prematurely calling Obama's or McCain's name for every state completely cuts these contenders out of the race. Why? Because their race is any less valid than the Democrats and Republicans'? Because they're less American than the front runners? Hardly. Most of it comes down to money, and the rest goes to public disinterest. We can't tolerate the wait – especially if the wait involves a pack of nobodies – and so we rush ahead, call the game before we hop in bed, and let the day end.
    By no means do I wish for my critique here to detract from the “historic nature” of the recent election. I've said already that Obama was my man this year, and I'm glad he won. I wouldn't have minded, though, waiting a few more days for things to actually happen, rather than simply letting the talking heads call it for me well ahead of time. I lament, too, that our system can't bear more competition than the little we're provided between two parties. Civilized democracies – and even some third world governments – around the world enjoy three parties. Several European countries boast five or six parties even. At times these separate groups align to form a more powerful coalition and solidify a win. Other times they'll go it alone, resting on the strength of their distinct platforms. But options like these are the name of the game when more than two parties are possible. Voters can indulge in the privilege of deliberation. We, too, have access to said privilege. We need only move beyond black and white and into the shades of partisan gray. This, however, may forever remain too tall an order for Americans, so long we call our elections like we do the Kentucky Derby.

I think politics should call, not for hope and belief, but for love and, as an extension, justice. Even though politics has failed often, here it has succeed on a few occasions.The Emancipation Proclamation comes immediately to mind as one of these. The Byzantine Empire is another. The freeing of the serfs another.

For these things, I am usually optimistic in this age.

Particularly in America. Here, I call no politician “Father,” and I am not expected to -- despite the tragically ludicrous spectacle of talk show hosts and heterodox pulpits caterwauling like the prophets of Baal. I don’t believe in politics. I engage in it, but I don’t believe in it: and there is a big difference between those two meanings. I do not worship Caesar, and I am generally pleased that American politics expects me to be critical and well-read. It expects me to learn our history and our civic ways. It expects me to think through fuzzy labels and to reject any world-bound enthusiasm.

To be fair, American politics expects me to love God first, and from that love to love, patriotically, the people and the land.

I call no man Father, because in that trenchant remark, Jesus Christ, Who said that no man is Good, reminded us that there is only One Father to believe in.

So I do. And I will keep calling my dad “Father,” and my bishop “Father” and my priest “Father,” but I do not burden them with belief and hope that they cannot fulfill.

I will respect my new President and the new Congress. I will criticize them more than the humans I call “Father.” They need my criticism, and I can dish it out with zest and meaning only if I do not put my faith in them. I will be their loyal opposition, their intercessor, their encourager and indeed, their prophet. 

I must be, since I am Orthodox you know. Orthodoxy is a constant memory of Paradise: and this world – including government – must be judged according to that fundament and that goal.

We’ve seen it all -- caesarism, tsarism, the caliphate, classical tyrants, demonic tyrants (ironically located in the secular 20th century), democracies (which are really not democracies but republics), and the present commercial-socialist state.

Democracy is nice, but it is not the only thing. We are not used to voting and we really do not understand it yet. But we will vote, and we Orthodox will vote all over the chart. We seek love and justice in different – not contradictory – ways. Orthodox will vote for McCain. Orthodox will vote for Obama. A few will vote for Messrs. Barr, Paul and Nader. Some will abstain.

But we all must partake of a little gentle anarchism, where we reject any notion of secular millenarianism. We must all remember Paradise, and forget about the hackneyed Rapture-theory but remember instead the actual “man of lawlessness,” whom the Lord is restraining through us.

We must all hope for the best, work for justice and peace, and plant a garden, take care of our family and our animals, keep our friends and stay true. We must extend our ties of kindness.

Read it all here.

It's not easy to make the infamous Willie Horton ad from the 1988 presidential campaign seem benign. But suggesting that Barack Obama is the Antichrist might just do it.

I've been thinking lately about the democratic process between the various presidential candidates. Actually, it's been a struggle for me not to think about it, so much so that I had to tell myself I was giving up politics for Lent. But after last night's results in Ohio and Texas, I have to wonder what path the Democrats' campaigns are going to take. Exit polls in Texas show that particularly among women who decided at the last moment, voters chose Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama based on their belief that Hillary would be "better in the White House." The irony of this reasoning is almost depressing. Why would you ever vote for someone whom you didn't think was going to manage the White House properly? And is that really all the race comes down to: which of the two candidates will manage the White House "better" in an international crisis*, and nothing more? Not trade policy, not potential for reform, not domestic affairs?

There's been speculation that this sudden resurgence of support for Clinton could be the result of a recent television ad for the Clinton campaign, which asks "When the red phone rings at 3 AM, who do you want in the White House to pick it up?" In other words, when there's a international crisis on our hands, when terrorists come knocking on your door... Personally, I see this ad as bordering on the fear-mongering we've been subjected to the last 7 years -- the type that led us to invade and decimate a country, chucking their citizens' rights (few they may have been) and imposing our own sense of justice on them without an exit strategy intact, or even a proper strategy for dealing with the guerrilla warfare we should have expected.

Up until a couple weeks ago, Clinton was trying to live up to Barack Obama's standard of "polite politics". She was holding back from the negative ads and the accusatory tactics. But as she lost one state after another -- 11 in a row -- I guess she realized that it's the OLD politics that really do get results! In other words, let's scare them into your camp. Threaten them with the worst-case scenarios. Go after your opponent's strengths rather that their weaknesses -- that way you'll leave them nothing left to stand on. You'll make them an utterly worthless candidate, because if people can't even believe a candidate has anything good to offer, then indeed there's no hope for him. In a word: ruthless.

So if no one else is going to say it, I will: SHAME ON YOU, HILLARY CLINTON. Shame on you for scaring up your votes. You've had strong base of support all this time, but you still saw fit to grasp at the sense of hope Obama inspires in people from every stripe of American. You saw fit to demean Hope, perhaps the very thing Americans cherish more than anything else, and you saw fit to diminish -- insult, even -- those in every state who have taken refuge its message -- a message espoused eloquently but not fatuously by Barack Obama -- by implying that somehow, they do not represent Americans' true interests.

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton, for attempting to distill America's hope. At this point, even your republican opponent has run a more dignified campaign that you.

I say this because I know Obama won't. He doesn't play the kind of politics that smears his opponent's reputation just because she's a step ahead. But as I'm not a politician -- I'm a citizen bound to hold our politicians in check -- I  think it's the proper thing to say, even if it falls on dead ears.  

from NY Times

The leading Republican presidential candidates said today that the military escalation in Iraq appeared to be restoring stability in that country and they berated their Democratic counterparts for advocating an end to American involvement there.

Gathered for a Sunday morning debate in Des Moines, the Republican field offered a clear contrast with Democrats who, in a debate the day before, declared the troop escalation a failure and advocated an American withdrawal from Iraq. By contrast, most of the Republicans pointed to some early evidence of success in Iraq in arguing that it would be a mistake to abandon the war.

...

The debate, on the ABC News program “This Week,” highlighted differences among the candidates on the issues of providing health care to Americans, abortion rights, and how aggressive the United States should be in spreading democracy around the world.

But in the course of 90 minutes, the Republicans were more apt to attack Democrats than each other — and in particular, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for saying that he was willing to negotiate with leaders of hostile nations without any preconditions and for saying that he would dispatch troops into Pakistan in search of terrorist camps if the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, failed to take action.

“In one week he went from saying he’s going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he’s going to bomb our allies,” said Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. “I mean he’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”

...

Both Mr. Romney and, to a lesser extent Mr. Giuliani, criticized Mr. Obama for a speech in which he threatened to send American troops into Pakistan with that nation’s approval. But later, under questioning, both said they would as president keep open that very option, although they thought that Mr. Obama had been imprudent to raise the prospect of invading an ally.

“That is an option that should remain open,” Mr. Giuliani said. “I believe the senator didn’t express it the right way. I think the senator, if he could just say it over again, might want to say that we would encourage Musharraf to allow us to do it if we thought he couldn’t accomplish it.”

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said: “The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn’t agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy.”

Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including then-Gov. George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.

But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, who once denounced Christian conservative leaders as “agents of intolerance,” and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, a liberal on abortion and gay rights issues who has been married three times.

But many were also deeply suspicious of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; the council has been distributing to its members a dossier prepared by a Massachusetts conservative group about liberal elements of his record on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights and gun control. Mr. Romney says he has become more conservative.

And some members of the council have raised doubts about lesser known candidates — Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Representative Duncan Hunter of California, who were invited to Amelia Island to address an elite audience of about 60 of its members, and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who spoke to the full council at its previous meeting, in October in Grand Rapids, Mich. Although each of the three had supporters, many conservatives expressed concerns about whether any of the candidates could unify their movement and raise enough money to overtake the frontrunners, several participants in the meetings said.

Finally, in a measure of their dissatisfaction, a delegation of prominent conservatives at Amelia Island attempted to enlist Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina to enter the race. A charismatic politician with a clear conservative record, Mr. Sanford is almost unknown outside his home state and has done nothing to prepare for a presidential run. He firmly declined the group’s entreaties, people involved in the recruiting effort said. A spokesman for Mr. Sanford said he would not comment on the matter.

“There is great anxiety,” said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation and an elder statesman of the conservative movement. “There is no outstanding conservative, and they are all looking for that.”

Mr. Weyrich, a longtime member of the council, declined to discuss the group or its meetings. The council’s bylaws forbid members from publicly disclosing its membership or activities, and participants agreed to discuss the Amelia Island meeting only on condition of anonymity.

For eight years and four elections, President Bush forged a singular alliance with Christian conservatives — including dispatching administration officials and even cabinet members to address to secret meetings of the council — that put them at the center of the Republican Party.

But in the aftermath of the stinging defeats in the 2006 midterms, and with discontent over the Iraq war weighing heavily on both the public, some Christian conservatives worry that they may find themselves on the sidelines of the presidential race.

The conservative concern may also be an ominous sign for the Republican Party about the morale of a core element of their political base. Conservatives warn that the 2008 election could shape up like 1996, when conservatives faced a lesser-of-two evils choice between a Republican they distrusted, former Senator Bob Dole, and a Democrat they disdained, President Bill Clinton. Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family later said in a speech to the Council for National Policy that he voted for a conservative third party that year rather than pull a lever for Mr. Dole.

The Council for National Policy was founded 25 years ago by the Rev. Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians to strategize about how to turn the country to the right. The secrecy was intended to insulate the group from what its members considered the liberal bias of the news media. Mr. Weyrich said in an interview that he saw conservatives gravitating toward Mr. Huckabee. Several others said most conservative leaders remained uncommitted, . In addition to doubts about their ability to generate enough money and momentum, each candidate also faces initial skepticism from one faction or another other of the right, on issues like immigration, trade, taxes and foreign affairs.

“Right now there is still a vacuum among conservative Republicans,” said Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative who was a Republican primary candidate in 2000. Conservatives, he said, “want a more provable conservative who also is demonstrating that they can put together the resources necessary to prevail.” He declined to comment on the Amelia Island meeting.

A spokesman for Mr. Brownback said he would not comment on the senator’s presentation to the council, citing its rules about strict confidentiality. Several others who attended his speech said he received heavy applause for his emphasis on restricting abortion and amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But others objected to his support for a temporary worker program for immigrants, and several faulted Mr. Brownback for touching only briefly on the threat of Islamic terrorists, an increasingly central focus of the council and many social conservative groups since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. (People who attended the Amelia Island event said Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, delivered a well-received address to the counsel about what he called the gathering threat of radical Islam.)

In an interview, Mr. Hunter, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a supporter of Mr. Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq, said the need for a strong national defense was the centerpiece of his speech. That defense, he argued, should include cracking down on illegal immigration, building a wall along the Mexican border, and renegotiating foreign trade deals to protect American manufacturing. “We are losing the arsenal of the democracy,” he said in the interview.

Although his views struck a chord with the many opponents of illegal immigration present at the meeting, several people present said, his stance on trade alienates the business wing of the Republican Party, compounding his substantial fund-raising challenges.

Mr. Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister who was the head of his state Baptist convention before becoming governor of Arkansas, has the advantage of strong personal connections to many counsel members. Many prominent evangelical Christians consider him a friend, and he has appeared several times as a guest on Dr. Dobson’s popular Christian radio program.

In an interview, Mr. Huckabee said he believed his roots in the evangelical world helped set him apart from his rivals. “I am not going to them. I am coming from them,” he said. He said he did not remember speaking about his opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage, “although I am sure that I must have.” He said he emphasized education, among other issues, and talked about an ongoing war “with a radical form of Islamic fascism” which he called “a bastardization of religion.”

But many conservatives, including several participants in the Amelia Island meeting, said Mr. Huckabee faced resistance from the limited-government, antitax wing of their movement. Some antitax activists fault Mr. Huckabee for allowing certain tax increases while he was governor of Arkansas, most notably one that was the subject of a public referendum.

In the interview, though, Mr. Huckabee said he was now leaning toward signing a pledge not to raise income taxes, that is presented to all the candidates by Mr. Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Mr. Norquist, a member of the Council for National Policy, said he remained open to any of the three candidates who spoke to the group or, for that matter, to Mr. Romney. He argued that with the right promises, any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records, just as some high school students take abstinence pledges even after having had sex.

“It’s called secondary virginity,” he said. “It is a big movement in high school and also available for politicians.”